I can see that people will be on both sides of this arguement. I can't find a better link. The following link is old.New vetting system for child workers. On the news tonight they have been talking about a new vetting system in the UK for anybody that has contact with children.

This means if you work/have some kind of contact with children 3 times a month you must be on the system. It is extended to even things like if you give other peoples kids a lift to a football game on a regular (3 times a month) basis. That is stupid. I know abuse happens in that situation- but this will just squeeze society into a dysfunctional and pointless entity.

They were saying the reason they are extending their field of reach is because abusers are more clever in getting access to children. So if you help out by driving your firends kids to a club or football game remember to feel really bad about it because the government thinks you are a paedophile! and so why volunteer to do something like that? surely this will make your kids friends parents suspect your intention too? so then people wont bother helping eachother out. Also there is a charge for being on the system- they quoted £65 for something, and if you don't comply they fine you £5000. (who would have guessed- another money making scheme liked the failed identity card scheme that still cost us billions)

The other guy on the news was answering with a good arguement that most abusers are relatives- and asking, if you want to make this kind of system then wouldn't you have to, or eventually end up saying, that kids grandparents have to go on the list? etc

The issue with the list is it works by rule of guitly by accusation. If somebody doesn't like you, or as they put it, if a colleague or something thinks you act strangely they can report you and then you will be barred on the list and will not be allowed to work with children- and the person who is barred may not even be told why he is not allowed to work with children.

An estimated 1 in 4 adults in the UK will go on the list, that's around 11 million people according to the figures. And of course with any large database in the UK this means the information is not secure, and acutally often large pieces of databases of very secure information in the UK are left on buses and trains on memory sticks by accident.

If this goes ahead, and at the moment it is going ahead by the end of this year, it will have a huge effect on volunteers and could jeopardise many organisations. They said the ultimate effect is there will be more kids with nothing to do on the streets and then they will be easier targets. I don't like the idea of the scheme, i have nothing to hide but it does sound like accusations and it reflects on an untrustworthy society. Abuse is a huge problem, but we can only squeeze things so far!

For example, the majority of the retarded society that we live in still think that if you have been abused then you will ikely become an abuser yourself- which is completely false. But lets say somebody knows that i have been abused and believes the myth and reports the "suspicion" to the agency- then that would mean, without explanation, i would no longer be able to volunteer with the organisations i work with.





I would like your opinions on this- then i will consider my position and write to the childrens comissioner if i feel i need to do so.

Lewis


(you guys may also be interested to know that the figures for children being abused before they are even teenagers (girl or boy) in the UK is 1 in 9- according to the news)

To be honest this is bullshit.

Can't speak for anyone else's Government, but it's not just unworkable but also another rushed-in plan to make idiot Gordon Brown look tough before an election. Kids will be no safer than they are now in fact probably less so.

Changing licensing systems for the sake of it has been a hallmark of this Government, they did it in plumbing/gas appliance fitting with CORGI to Gas Safe, same shit new label only it costs more for those working in that industry, it's a nice tax raising wheeze and in this case it would be laughable if it didn't involve child protection, which left-wing councils have shown themselves to be pretty rubbish at doing for the past couple of decades. So basically, they want more tax, and don't give a fuck if kids are in danger when they earn it.

If this is intended to replace the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks, then immediately there will be seven weeks to two months of moving between one system and the other - (you will have to check this before you write to that official) - part of my job now involves filing those checks and the whole process can delay the starting of work for some employees. Any more bureaucracy on top of that and you'll have even more people just not bothering with it and finding different jobs.

As for anyone labelling you a potential future abuser, you would sue them for libel end of story, plenty of no-win no-fee lawyers about.

Ok, according to ISA (independent safeguarding authority), the news lied:

Malicious allegations
The ISA gives assurances that allegations will never, of themselves, lead to automatic inclusion in the ISA Barred Lists. Before a barring decision is made, the individual will be given the information on which the decision is based, and will be given the opportunity to explain their case.

ISA

I found that you will have to pay a one off fee if you are employed to work with children, but it will be free if you do it voluntarily.

-------------------------------------------------
vetting info

You can apply for registration through your employer if you have one, or if you are applying for a job, through your prespective employer. If you are self-employed – as a childminder, for example – you will need to apply yourself. You will be able to do this through the website as the ISA vetting service is phased in.

Employees
If you are already employed to work with children or vulnerable adults and have had a Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check, you will need to apply for ISA registration in due course. Details of how and when you should apply will become available on the Independent Safeguarding Authority's website.

If you are employed to work with children or vulnerable adults and have not been CRB checked you will need to apply for ISA registration as early as possible. Details of how and when to do this will become available in due course.

In both cases you will need to pay a one-off fee. Once you have paid for registration we will give you a personal ISA Registration Number and you remain on our database even if you change employers.

Volunteers

If you work or want to work with vulnerable people you will need to apply to register with the ISA in exactly the same way as an employee. The only difference is that the ISA do not charge an application fee for volunteers.

Well it depends, as long as people completely new to the sector only have to make the one application to the ISA, and people with CRBs running out just move to the new system, it just might have a chance of working. I still think there is the danger of the overlap in the meantime and even my very limited experience of how it works now, tells me there's bound to be some sort of screwup.

This is my draft letter so far, i may or may not send something similar to this.
----------------------------------------

Dear Childrens Comissioner,

Independent Safeguarding Authority

I am very interested in knowing your position on the new law regarding the vetting scheme for people who work/volunteer/have contact with children. This law affects Wales and the children of Wales- as children’s commissioner you work to champion the rights and promote the welfare of all children in Wales.

I am interested to know whether or not you have had the opportunity to make a press or media statement about this important issue.

I would like to start with the statement that upholding the welfare of children in the community inherently means upholding the welfare of the community.

The Scheme
The new scheme has a number of flaws. The size and inevitable insecurity of the proposed database (1 in 4 adults- 11 million people) is a certain difficulty. The vetting system of regular contact (defined as 3 contacts a month) and its condition for inclusion (such as giving your kids friends a lift to a football game) are again poorly exacted ideas. These figures and examples were presented in a recent news program.

The Excuse
The reason the agencies are extending their field of reach is, as they claimed on a news program, because abusers are becoming cleverer in gaining access to children.

Rightfully the point was made that actually most abusers are relatives to the child. And as asked on the news, does this mean that grandparents will have to be vetted too? You see, this scheme is not a well-thought out scheme. It is more than apparent that if this scheme does go ahead the next logical step would be to vet relatives and eventually parents- the scheme wouldn’t make sense without that progression- but of course that would be unacceptable.

Implication
The implication of the proposed and impending scheme is a society that has impeded trust- and it will ultimately squeeze society into a dysfunctional entity. This scheme welcomes mistrust between people in society- people will feel suspected and be suspected by others unjustifiably, with their intentions questioned by the government in an intrusive way. If I thought that the scheme would benefit children in a significant way then an intrusive compromise would be justified. We must ask ourselves, How much do we gain? How much do we lose?

The Big Question
What we really want to ask ourselves is will this scheme make the children safer? Will it improve their quality of life? I am afraid that most people would agree with me and say no, although I can only speak for myself. I am the teen coordinator of an internet site committed to preventing, healing, and eliminating all forms of sexual victimisation of boys and men through support, treatment, research, education, advocacy, and activism (MaleSurvivor.org). The site is part of a larger mainly American based international charity and support organisation with professional standing in the John Jay School of criminal law, New York. I am actively involved with survivors of CSA and have met many survivors and professionals in the field, and have helped to lead a workshop within the UK. I believe, and have discussed with some colleagues, that this attempt to somehow corner the abuser is not only poorly directed but not an effective approach. Effort and energy could be better directed to tackle this important issue. Protecting children from sexual abuse is not only about denying abusers opportunity for access (a determined abuser can always get access), it is about education and other preventative steps. As already mentioned, “stranger danger” is an inaccurate emphasis (professionals agree on this), and much abuse occurs in the home. The Excuse is therefore, to anybody working closely in the field of CSA, clearly quite foolish. It could be asked, is the real intention monetary? (there is to be a charge of around £65 to be vetted, and a fine of £5000 for noncompliance. If you are employed to work with children you must pay this one-off fee. Volunteers do not have to pay this fee).

I asked you a moment ago, Will it improve their quality of life? The news program suggests that the ultimate effect will be fewer volunteers (due to increased suspicion hindering good will), which will jeopardise many organisations. There will be more kids with nothing to do on the streets and they will be easier targets. Abuse is a huge problem, but we need to employ effective and not destructive strategies to fight this. Is vetting a dad who gives his sons friends a lift to football practice destructive? I think so. The government and ISA seem out of touch and this worries me. I am surprised to see that Sir Roger Singleton CBE, who is the chair at ISA (and has served on public inquiries into child abuse in children’s homes) does not realize the flaw in this master plan. The board members also have good and varied credentials so this failure implies that the scheme has superimposed objectives (influence is not predominantly child protection).

ISA Background
The project motive was the case of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells- murdered by Ian Huntley (a school caretaker) in 2002. The Bichard Inquiry looked at the way employers recruit people to work with children and vulnerable adults.

The result was a single agency to vet all individuals who want to work or volunteer with vulnerable people- ISA. My fear with this apparent “safeguard” is whether or not this pretense of security will make it easier for authorities to overlook the reality of where and how most abuse cases occur? I find myself frustrated to see so much professional misdirection when the field of CSA is making so much progress.

Media Responsibilities and creating controversy
ISA policy is not being represented fairly by current news programs. Much of the claims and accusations on the news are not in accordance with ISA policy. These contradictions will lead people to feel concerned and a clear unbiased view needs to be presented to assure the welfare of children in the community.

The news presents the vetting list as one that effectively works by rule of “guilty by accusation”. In other words the database works with both hard and soft intelligence. It was stated that if a colleague thinks you are acting strangely he can report you and you will be barred on the list (and will not be allowed to work with children). It was stated that the person who is barred may not even be told why he is not allowed to work with children.

ISA defends itself with its policy on malicious allegations. “The ISA gives assurances that allegations will never, of themselves, lead to automatic inclusion in the ISA Barred Lists. Before a barring decision is made, the individual will be given the information on which the decision is based, and will be given the opportunity to explain their case. It is emphasised that it is a serious offence to make a malicious referral with an intention to mislead. A person found guilty of this may be subject to defamation and damages claims. Criminal sanctions, which include offences related to wasting police time, perverting or attempting to pervert the course of justice, conspiracy and perjury, could also apply.” http://www.gcc-uk.org/files/page_file/In...ote_27Jan09.pdf


I hope you are able to put some of my concerns to rest and hope you are able to present the official opinion of your office on this issue, and importantly how effective you believe this scheme will be.

Much thanks
Lewis

Let us not minimize the mental effect on kids who are being abused right now.
None of this, is going to make them feel safer, and we all know
that something like this is going to make the kids feel that
there is danger on every corner.

Ministers are just trying to cover their own backs, by saying
that if anything happens, then they are not to blame, because
they have safeguarded all those involved with kids.

We are steadily sleepwalking into a police state, with the
sheep all saying "I have nothing to hide"!
Nobody, including the childrens' charities, can see what good
if any, this legislation will achieve.

I can just see somebody trying to buy a house in the future, only to be told that they need the clearance to live there.
Grandad needing to be licenced to look after grandkids etc.

The World was mad enough when I was a kid, but no amount of
laws will mean safety from abuse.

You sadly cannot educate those who cannot think beyond what
they are told, by ill thinking individuals.

ste